EPTImproving PvZ Balance: Discussion Needed - Page 3
| Forum Index > Brood War Strategy |
|
Katkishka
United States657 Posts
| ||
|
SuperJongMan
Jamaica11586 Posts
| ||
|
Knickknack
United States1187 Posts
Problem with balance threads is emotion runs high, and having anything meaningful to say about balance is rather difficult. Ultimately for structural balance we would want to use mathematical comparison. Consider: 2 goon costs 250/100. Reaver happens to cost 250/100 with 4scarabs. Damange and rate of fire is such that when you have 1reaver vs 2 spread goon you get a double KO and scarabs have run out. This is straight up attack equilibrium. Sure, reaver has splash, but it also costs tech to be able to even make, and they need shuttle to be mobile. The tradeoffs make sense. This is why if in pvp if you should just stay goon or also go reaver is a completely valid option either way. Thing is, there is none of this deep equilibrium analysis going on in pvz imbalance threads. Without that it is just words, words, words. We have win statistics, and probability shows us that it is highly likely there are pretty consistent structural race-map issues in pvz. Now, I showed how two units in the same race balance to each other. Trying to do this type of equilibrium analysis between races, their tech, economic structures, and so on is way beyond me, but perhaps someone out there has an idea. As to this thread: SC2 is almost here. You are not ever going to see a patch that makes structural changes to races at this point, as much as people can even agree on something like buffing scout. So while throwing ideas around about structural changes can be interesting and worthy of a thread, it's not going to happen. You will see some new maps however. So starting a topic about map conditions, rather than what can be done to the races themselves is more pragmatic. | ||
|
old times sake
165 Posts
I don't agree that it is futile. People always say Blizzard will never do it. But they have done it in the past. In fact, I think Blizzard tends to give StarCraft more attention when they are pushing a new related product (it happened prior to BW's launch, prior to War2BNE, prior to War3, prior to War3x, etc. They suck up to us when they are about to sell something. It's not like they have a track record of ignoring SC for a long time either. hey changed storm long after everybody said they would never change SC again, and I'm sure there are more examples.) Anyways maybe we should debate whether Blizzard will consider structural changes somewhere else, because allowing this kind of thing seems to also suggest we should debate whether the matchup is imba at all, which again the thread clearly is not. This thread is about clarifying what the best PvZ changes might be, in case anybody ever needs them. Call it "for fun" if you want... if you think it's pointless then let us be mistaken, or make a thread about how it's pointless if you want... isn't this thread derailed enough without us trying to defend whether the thread is pointless? | ||
|
heroyi
United States1064 Posts
On December 21 2009 08:19 arb wrote: Let's put it this way. If they didnt make AI worse  BoxeR would be a protoss player.oh my god 0_0 i could not even imagine half the new shit and ways to revolutionize protoss gameplay!!!!!!!!! can you imagine protoss being played by the emperor... so how retarded did blizzard make the reaver ai to disappoint boxer? how smart was it before? | ||
|
Athos
United States2484 Posts
| ||
|
Traveler
United States451 Posts
On December 21 2009 09:20 Athos wrote: No, this thread is pointless because PvZ is balanced. Didn't we already go over this? In the thread this spawned from we showed that we had a crazy Z score for testing if PvZ was balanced, meaning that we had a really low chance of that actually being true. The sample size is so huge throughout the history of Starcraft that it makes the chance of the 55% win rate of zergs over protoss extremely significant. This is not 10 games on Iccup to see which race is better, this is thousands of games between the best players in the world... Anyways that brief period of Protoss success is what stops PvZ win ratio from being over 60% in favor of zerg, but because that period was so Protoss favored people argue that PvZ is balanced. Anyways, don't take an opinion over math. It was proved at a significance level over 99% that PvZ is imbalanced. | ||
|
vOddy
Sweden402 Posts
On December 21 2009 06:46 avilo wrote: I dunno if anyone here plays any of the recent cnc games, from cnc3tw, cnc3kw, or ra3, but balance was always heavily discussed on the forums, and I can tell you that especially at the start of ra3, so many soviet players complained that allies were imba and such when really... all the soviet player sucked. that's right, all of the "good" soviet players literally sucked at the game at top level. It just happened that most of the good players were allies players. It's a bit the same way here imo, a lot of the current top protoss progamers...are simply not at the level of the top Zergs. of course maps also factor into this as well, but Protoss is slacking in general. as Starcraft players, we are all very spoiled at just how damn balanced Starcraft really is. If you play other RTS like cnc/dow/aoe then you know this  Lol hi Avilo. Go 1v1? | ||
|
aznanimedude
United States199 Posts
On December 21 2009 04:58 old times sake wrote: zulu_nation suggested I make a new thread for this. This post grew out of a 46-page thread on PvZ imbalance. --> Please go there if you want to argue about this. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=102568¤tpage=46 PLEASE DO NOT ARGUE HERE ABOUT WHETHER PVZ IS BALANCED. <-- I want this thread to be for the following problems only, and you can participate in the first part even if you feel there's no imbalance. Please focus on improving our answers to the following 2 problems by critiquing answers given and offering your own improved or new versions: Problem I. What types of changes primarily effect the PvZ matchup and not so much PvT or TvZ? This is a list of all options; I am not proposing all of these be done together. Some canidates include: A) Changes that effect the strength of Hydras or Hydra Breaks (shifting Zealot shields to HP; making Photon Cannons a medium unit; increasing Hydra build time slightly or decreasing Zealot build time slightly) nodule says modifying Zeals or Hydras will effect other matchups too much; also he says mucking with cannons is dangerous because they effect too much of PvZ start to finish. Geo.Rion says Hydras aren't too strong, so don't weaken them. B) Making Reaver a better option (improving Reaver AI; reducing or shifting cost of Reaver or Reaver tech) nodule supports improving the AI, says Terrans should just deal with it Sadist says we need to get more specific i.e. Reavers never missing would be way too good Geo.Rion is okay with fixing Reaver AI i.e. shoot sunkens from far away not walk into sunken range on attack move C) Making DA a better option (free or reduced spell research; reduced spell energy cost) nodule likes this, says it is very PvZ specific so a good avenue, suggesting that Queens, Ghosts, and DA's all get a boost simultaneously Geo.Rion says DA's are already good and any increase to DA will make mutas useless Whiplash suggests making Maelstorm cost 75 energy Kazius says changing DA's starting energy should be enough. Maybe it could be a higher percentage of his max energy than other units, that way energy upgrade becomes useful as well? shikushiku suggests DA start with mael so that the Toss push can come sooner D) Helping Storm E) Increase Archon range (exeprime says double it) Whiplash says to increase Archon range by 1 F) Improve Corsairs (nodule suggests this, since it is specific to PvZ, saying reducing cost and/or build time can help Protoss get information sooner) G) Improve Observers (nodule says we can consider making Observers die to two scourge instead of one, although it does have PvT implications) H) Improve Scouts (Whiplash says to let them start with speed upgrade and have lower build time I) Increase collision size of some of Protoss's buildings to help Protoss SimCity make Ling runby's less effective (suggested by d3_crescentia) Red = people bashed it Blue = additions thanks to others' Green = people liked it I hope that some of these will be ruled out, and that others can be added, but the more complete this list is, the better we can work on Problem II. What should be added to this list? What details should be added to these generalities? What options are horrible and should be striken? Problem II. What specific set of the changes, that answer "Problem I", do you propose we adopt to improve the PvZ matchup? Keep in mind that clearly some maps will become imba as a result, but overall, the goal is to make more maps higher quality for this matchup without adversely effecting other matchups. Which options do you hold off the table, and why? Which options do you want on the table, and why? Finally, which set of options, together, do you feel is the right fit? Those are the questions, and the rest of this post will be an example--my own reply to these Problems, to give you a better idea of what the questions mean: + Show Spoiler + The first type of response would be to review a group of changes, saying what you like and don't like: For example, in my case, (regarding I.A) I really don't want Hydras to become weaker. I like them as-is for not only ZvP, but ZvT, and ZvZ. So I favor putting Zealot build time down by 4 or so, as opposed to making Hydras worse in this regard. Photons becoming a medium unit means things like Zealots, Lings, Marines remain the same to them, while explosive units like Mutas, Tanks, Goons, Hydras would do less damage to the HP part of them--and Vultures (concussive) would kill them more easily. Similarly, shifting Zealot shields to HP makes Zealots stronger in all of these cases as well. Would PvT be ruined as a result? If not, it seems like a good change if what you want to do is make those kinds of fights shift slightly. That's how I feel about point A of Problem I. A second kind of post would say which points you feel are the best kind to look at, and again giving details on what you think will work and why: But I actually like points B, C, and D more than A. A is subtle and dangerous, whereas I'm more confident that DA's, especially Maelstrom, pretty much are not going to break other matchups even if raised to the point where they effect PvZ earlier and more substantially. And I think like this: A DA is really like two casters because it's two units, and gaswise it's like 1.25 High Templar. Why, then, not make it able to cast spells 25% more often, at least? In other words, cut it's spell energy costs to about 75% of what they were, rounding to Blizzard-style multiples-of-fives type numbers: Mind Control for 110; Feedback for 35; Maelstrom for 75. When Blizzard made Mind Control they were way too scared of it being "awesome." Clearly, it is anything but. I might favor moving it down to something like 75. On the other hand, Feedback might already be fine at 50, and I don't really like a caster that simply makes other casters useless (kind of how I don't like Restoration making Parasite useless). My second favorite is point D because it doesn't scare me much as far as ruining other matchups. Faster Templar movement (still slower than the Protoss army, but able to walk up to you and storm without being as obvious going to clearly die for it) and de-nerfing Storm seem like no-brainers. I also would like Reaver to be more of an option for pros, who I feel avoid it because it has been overly nerfed and has a horrible, unreliable AI. But I tread carefully here because if the Reaver is made too strong it will be horrible for PvT. If I knew PvT better I might dare to suggest Reavers coming out a little earlier (by being cheaper or having tech cheaper, for instance). But instead, I say, just improve their AI a little so scarabs are reliable and controlable, and leave the rest the same. Those first two kinds of replies seek to improve the answers to Problem I and lay the groundwork for answering Problem II. A third type of response would be to flat out state what your bet is for answering Problem II. So I would go with DA spell reduction, the Templar movement and Storm de-nerf, the Zealot shift and Photon mediumize, and a weak Reaver AI fix. Then others would come back and say how this set is too strong and would ruin the matchup, etc. Finally, if I had more ideas for things that effect PvZ without hurting other matchups, I would include them here. and then PvZ is changed so Protoss stop crying and get to win again and then zerg will say ZvP is too imba, are we allowed to double the range of mutalisks and give zerg shields to counteract, they make em move faster and do more damage and stuff? and give the defiler another spell? are we allowed to complain then? and make a thread about how ZvP is too imba now? | ||
|
Fontong
United States6454 Posts
| ||
|
Inzek
Chile802 Posts
| ||
|
Athos
United States2484 Posts
On December 21 2009 10:00 aznanimedude wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 21 2009 04:58 old times sake wrote: zulu_nation suggested I make a new thread for this. This post grew out of a 46-page thread on PvZ imbalance. --> Please go there if you want to argue about this. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=102568¤tpage=46 PLEASE DO NOT ARGUE HERE ABOUT WHETHER PVZ IS BALANCED. <-- I want this thread to be for the following problems only, and you can participate in the first part even if you feel there's no imbalance. Please focus on improving our answers to the following 2 problems by critiquing answers given and offering your own improved or new versions: Problem I. What types of changes primarily effect the PvZ matchup and not so much PvT or TvZ? This is a list of all options; I am not proposing all of these be done together. Some canidates include: A) Changes that effect the strength of Hydras or Hydra Breaks (shifting Zealot shields to HP; making Photon Cannons a medium unit; increasing Hydra build time slightly or decreasing Zealot build time slightly) nodule says modifying Zeals or Hydras will effect other matchups too much; also he says mucking with cannons is dangerous because they effect too much of PvZ start to finish. Geo.Rion says Hydras aren't too strong, so don't weaken them. B) Making Reaver a better option (improving Reaver AI; reducing or shifting cost of Reaver or Reaver tech) nodule supports improving the AI, says Terrans should just deal with it Sadist says we need to get more specific i.e. Reavers never missing would be way too good Geo.Rion is okay with fixing Reaver AI i.e. shoot sunkens from far away not walk into sunken range on attack move C) Making DA a better option (free or reduced spell research; reduced spell energy cost) nodule likes this, says it is very PvZ specific so a good avenue, suggesting that Queens, Ghosts, and DA's all get a boost simultaneously Geo.Rion says DA's are already good and any increase to DA will make mutas useless Whiplash suggests making Maelstorm cost 75 energy Kazius says changing DA's starting energy should be enough. Maybe it could be a higher percentage of his max energy than other units, that way energy upgrade becomes useful as well? shikushiku suggests DA start with mael so that the Toss push can come sooner D) Helping Storm E) Increase Archon range (exeprime says double it) Whiplash says to increase Archon range by 1 F) Improve Corsairs (nodule suggests this, since it is specific to PvZ, saying reducing cost and/or build time can help Protoss get information sooner) G) Improve Observers (nodule says we can consider making Observers die to two scourge instead of one, although it does have PvT implications) H) Improve Scouts (Whiplash says to let them start with speed upgrade and have lower build time I) Increase collision size of some of Protoss's buildings to help Protoss SimCity make Ling runby's less effective (suggested by d3_crescentia) Red = people bashed it Blue = additions thanks to others' Green = people liked it I hope that some of these will be ruled out, and that others can be added, but the more complete this list is, the better we can work on Problem II. What should be added to this list? What details should be added to these generalities? What options are horrible and should be striken? Problem II. What specific set of the changes, that answer "Problem I", do you propose we adopt to improve the PvZ matchup? Keep in mind that clearly some maps will become imba as a result, but overall, the goal is to make more maps higher quality for this matchup without adversely effecting other matchups. Which options do you hold off the table, and why? Which options do you want on the table, and why? Finally, which set of options, together, do you feel is the right fit? Those are the questions, and the rest of this post will be an example--my own reply to these Problems, to give you a better idea of what the questions mean: + Show Spoiler + The first type of response would be to review a group of changes, saying what you like and don't like: For example, in my case, (regarding I.A) I really don't want Hydras to become weaker. I like them as-is for not only ZvP, but ZvT, and ZvZ. So I favor putting Zealot build time down by 4 or so, as opposed to making Hydras worse in this regard. Photons becoming a medium unit means things like Zealots, Lings, Marines remain the same to them, while explosive units like Mutas, Tanks, Goons, Hydras would do less damage to the HP part of them--and Vultures (concussive) would kill them more easily. Similarly, shifting Zealot shields to HP makes Zealots stronger in all of these cases as well. Would PvT be ruined as a result? If not, it seems like a good change if what you want to do is make those kinds of fights shift slightly. That's how I feel about point A of Problem I. A second kind of post would say which points you feel are the best kind to look at, and again giving details on what you think will work and why: But I actually like points B, C, and D more than A. A is subtle and dangerous, whereas I'm more confident that DA's, especially Maelstrom, pretty much are not going to break other matchups even if raised to the point where they effect PvZ earlier and more substantially. And I think like this: A DA is really like two casters because it's two units, and gaswise it's like 1.25 High Templar. Why, then, not make it able to cast spells 25% more often, at least? In other words, cut it's spell energy costs to about 75% of what they were, rounding to Blizzard-style multiples-of-fives type numbers: Mind Control for 110; Feedback for 35; Maelstrom for 75. When Blizzard made Mind Control they were way too scared of it being "awesome." Clearly, it is anything but. I might favor moving it down to something like 75. On the other hand, Feedback might already be fine at 50, and I don't really like a caster that simply makes other casters useless (kind of how I don't like Restoration making Parasite useless). My second favorite is point D because it doesn't scare me much as far as ruining other matchups. Faster Templar movement (still slower than the Protoss army, but able to walk up to you and storm without being as obvious going to clearly die for it) and de-nerfing Storm seem like no-brainers. I also would like Reaver to be more of an option for pros, who I feel avoid it because it has been overly nerfed and has a horrible, unreliable AI. But I tread carefully here because if the Reaver is made too strong it will be horrible for PvT. If I knew PvT better I might dare to suggest Reavers coming out a little earlier (by being cheaper or having tech cheaper, for instance). But instead, I say, just improve their AI a little so scarabs are reliable and controlable, and leave the rest the same. Those first two kinds of replies seek to improve the answers to Problem I and lay the groundwork for answering Problem II. A third type of response would be to flat out state what your bet is for answering Problem II. So I would go with DA spell reduction, the Templar movement and Storm de-nerf, the Zealot shift and Photon mediumize, and a weak Reaver AI fix. Then others would come back and say how this set is too strong and would ruin the matchup, etc. Finally, if I had more ideas for things that effect PvZ without hurting other matchups, I would include them here. and then PvZ is changed so Protoss stop crying and get to win again and then zerg will say ZvP is too imba, are we allowed to double the range of mutalisks and give zerg shields to counteract, they make em move faster and do more damage and stuff? and give the defiler another spell? are we allowed to complain then? and make a thread about how ZvP is too imba now? Completely agree with this. Starcraft is so deep that instead of complaining about imbalance you always have room to get better yourself. By making game-play changes you're not only fucking up the balance for other matchups, but you're not allowing the metagame to expand. It's no secret that Starcraft is the most balanced RTS of all time and here you are ready and willing to screw all that up over a lousy 5%. Completely ridiculous. | ||
|
old times sake
165 Posts
On December 21 2009 10:00 aznanimedude wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 21 2009 04:58 old times sake wrote: zulu_nation suggested I make a new thread for this. This post grew out of a 46-page thread on PvZ imbalance. --> Please go there if you want to argue about this. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=102568¤tpage=46 PLEASE DO NOT ARGUE HERE ABOUT WHETHER PVZ IS BALANCED. <-- I want this thread to be for the following problems only, and you can participate in the first part even if you feel there's no imbalance. Please focus on improving our answers to the following 2 problems by critiquing answers given and offering your own improved or new versions: Problem I. What types of changes primarily effect the PvZ matchup and not so much PvT or TvZ? This is a list of all options; I am not proposing all of these be done together. Some canidates include: A) Changes that effect the strength of Hydras or Hydra Breaks (shifting Zealot shields to HP; making Photon Cannons a medium unit; increasing Hydra build time slightly or decreasing Zealot build time slightly) nodule says modifying Zeals or Hydras will effect other matchups too much; also he says mucking with cannons is dangerous because they effect too much of PvZ start to finish. Geo.Rion says Hydras aren't too strong, so don't weaken them. B) Making Reaver a better option (improving Reaver AI; reducing or shifting cost of Reaver or Reaver tech) nodule supports improving the AI, says Terrans should just deal with it Sadist says we need to get more specific i.e. Reavers never missing would be way too good Geo.Rion is okay with fixing Reaver AI i.e. shoot sunkens from far away not walk into sunken range on attack move C) Making DA a better option (free or reduced spell research; reduced spell energy cost) nodule likes this, says it is very PvZ specific so a good avenue, suggesting that Queens, Ghosts, and DA's all get a boost simultaneously Geo.Rion says DA's are already good and any increase to DA will make mutas useless Whiplash suggests making Maelstorm cost 75 energy Kazius says changing DA's starting energy should be enough. Maybe it could be a higher percentage of his max energy than other units, that way energy upgrade becomes useful as well? shikushiku suggests DA start with mael so that the Toss push can come sooner D) Helping Storm E) Increase Archon range (exeprime says double it) Whiplash says to increase Archon range by 1 F) Improve Corsairs (nodule suggests this, since it is specific to PvZ, saying reducing cost and/or build time can help Protoss get information sooner) G) Improve Observers (nodule says we can consider making Observers die to two scourge instead of one, although it does have PvT implications) H) Improve Scouts (Whiplash says to let them start with speed upgrade and have lower build time I) Increase collision size of some of Protoss's buildings to help Protoss SimCity make Ling runby's less effective (suggested by d3_crescentia) Red = people bashed it Blue = additions thanks to others' Green = people liked it I hope that some of these will be ruled out, and that others can be added, but the more complete this list is, the better we can work on Problem II. What should be added to this list? What details should be added to these generalities? What options are horrible and should be striken? Problem II. What specific set of the changes, that answer "Problem I", do you propose we adopt to improve the PvZ matchup? Keep in mind that clearly some maps will become imba as a result, but overall, the goal is to make more maps higher quality for this matchup without adversely effecting other matchups. Which options do you hold off the table, and why? Which options do you want on the table, and why? Finally, which set of options, together, do you feel is the right fit? Those are the questions, and the rest of this post will be an example--my own reply to these Problems, to give you a better idea of what the questions mean: + Show Spoiler + The first type of response would be to review a group of changes, saying what you like and don't like: For example, in my case, (regarding I.A) I really don't want Hydras to become weaker. I like them as-is for not only ZvP, but ZvT, and ZvZ. So I favor putting Zealot build time down by 4 or so, as opposed to making Hydras worse in this regard. Photons becoming a medium unit means things like Zealots, Lings, Marines remain the same to them, while explosive units like Mutas, Tanks, Goons, Hydras would do less damage to the HP part of them--and Vultures (concussive) would kill them more easily. Similarly, shifting Zealot shields to HP makes Zealots stronger in all of these cases as well. Would PvT be ruined as a result? If not, it seems like a good change if what you want to do is make those kinds of fights shift slightly. That's how I feel about point A of Problem I. A second kind of post would say which points you feel are the best kind to look at, and again giving details on what you think will work and why: But I actually like points B, C, and D more than A. A is subtle and dangerous, whereas I'm more confident that DA's, especially Maelstrom, pretty much are not going to break other matchups even if raised to the point where they effect PvZ earlier and more substantially. And I think like this: A DA is really like two casters because it's two units, and gaswise it's like 1.25 High Templar. Why, then, not make it able to cast spells 25% more often, at least? In other words, cut it's spell energy costs to about 75% of what they were, rounding to Blizzard-style multiples-of-fives type numbers: Mind Control for 110; Feedback for 35; Maelstrom for 75. When Blizzard made Mind Control they were way too scared of it being "awesome." Clearly, it is anything but. I might favor moving it down to something like 75. On the other hand, Feedback might already be fine at 50, and I don't really like a caster that simply makes other casters useless (kind of how I don't like Restoration making Parasite useless). My second favorite is point D because it doesn't scare me much as far as ruining other matchups. Faster Templar movement (still slower than the Protoss army, but able to walk up to you and storm without being as obvious going to clearly die for it) and de-nerfing Storm seem like no-brainers. I also would like Reaver to be more of an option for pros, who I feel avoid it because it has been overly nerfed and has a horrible, unreliable AI. But I tread carefully here because if the Reaver is made too strong it will be horrible for PvT. If I knew PvT better I might dare to suggest Reavers coming out a little earlier (by being cheaper or having tech cheaper, for instance). But instead, I say, just improve their AI a little so scarabs are reliable and controlable, and leave the rest the same. Those first two kinds of replies seek to improve the answers to Problem I and lay the groundwork for answering Problem II. A third type of response would be to flat out state what your bet is for answering Problem II. So I would go with DA spell reduction, the Templar movement and Storm de-nerf, the Zealot shift and Photon mediumize, and a weak Reaver AI fix. Then others would come back and say how this set is too strong and would ruin the matchup, etc. Finally, if I had more ideas for things that effect PvZ without hurting other matchups, I would include them here. and then PvZ is changed so Protoss stop crying and get to win again and then zerg will say ZvP is too imba, are we allowed to double the range of mutalisks and give zerg shields to counteract, they make em move faster and do more damage and stuff? and give the defiler another spell? are we allowed to complain then? and make a thread about how ZvP is too imba now? Yeah, you should. It will help you get banned faster, so go for it. | ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
red=stupid bitching blue=dumb ideas green=statistical fallacy | ||
|
writer22816
United States5775 Posts
On December 21 2009 10:18 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Whoa man I am a protoss player and I can tell you that for sure the game is imbalanced because I am useing statistics and over long periods of time lots of people have proven beyond any measure of doubt that without changes to the game it is impossible to fix the disadvantage that protoss is at in the matchup of protoss versus zerg for example the nexus costs 400 minerals but the hatchery only costs 300 what is that??? and on top of that they get TWO zerglings for 50 minerals but protoss only gets ONE zealot for 100, how can we balance this? I suggest making zealots cost 100 but spawning two of them so its even you know because that will fix the zerg's built in macro advantage and then we need to make other units better too like the high templar because storm is useless unless your Bisu. DONT MAKE ANY POSTS SAYING THAT IM WRONG because im not there are already other threads saying that im wrong so if you think im wrong go post in those instead ok because I am not wrong pvz is imbalanced as evidenced by the 55% of the time that zerg win on maps played by pros ok? red=stupid bitching blue=dumb ideas green=statistical fallacy This. And I can't believe the OP makes a PvZ imba thread and tries to forbid anyone actually arguing that PvZ isn't imbalanced. | ||
|
saltywet
Hong Kong1316 Posts
| ||
|
old times sake
165 Posts
On December 21 2009 10:35 writer22816 wrote: This. And I can't believe the OP makes a PvZ imba thread and tries to forbid anyone actually arguing that PvZ isn't imbalanced. This isn't a PvZ imba thread. Read it again. ... | ||
|
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
On December 21 2009 10:41 old times sake wrote: This isn't a PvZ imba thread. Read it again. ... The name of the thread is "improving PvZ Balance" and you're saying it's not a PvZ imba thread, Seriously this thread is such ajoke. | ||
|
heroyi
United States1064 Posts
seriously can you guys not respect the op...he asked you guys to go flame somewhere else not here. he wants honest to god input from ppl who AGREE on his view (which is a considerable amount). dont be a jackass and try to hijack it. either illiteracy is really high on TL or there are a lot of ignorant jackasses here... anywhooo.... the only change i can see happening is the DA. it is generally seen not used in all around game play. Now if they made it more efficient like more energy or less energy usage/less penalty then i think DA will be considered more. DA has some nice spells that can be used but like i said the input is just too much. | ||
|
old times sake
165 Posts
On December 21 2009 10:43 ghermination wrote: The name of the thread is "improving PvZ Balance" and you're saying it's not a PvZ imba thread, Seriously this thread is such ajoke. If you don't think PvZ balance can be improved then why are you posting in this thread? I offer another thread where people debate this fact and specifically define this thread as having a different purpose precisely because there's already a thread for debating whether PvZ balance can be improved. If I was able obviously I would rename this thread, but then again the length limit kept me from doing this already; I thought explanation in the OP would suffice but instead you want to pile on the attempts at starting a flamewar in the wrong thread on the basis of your interpretation of the title of the thread (despite the text of it!). | ||
| ||
